Recent anti-government revolts in both Brazil and Turkey have come as a surprise to many, given that some people usually associate these disturbances to countries that are labelled as ‘non-democratic’. The two countries, of course, have had a different history and path to development, but both have recently become major players in international affairs. Brazil’s recent boom has made it the 7th largest economy in the world, it is one of the BRICS (five emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), whereas Turkey is seen as the bridge between the West and East, a strategic partner of the West in the turbulent Middle East and beyond; and more importantly, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).Despite all these accolades, one wonders whether the events in both countries were just coincidental or pre-planned by some invisible forces. Call them conspiracy theorists or not, some have gone further to suggest that these demonstrations have gone beyond the acceptable and legitimate expression of grievances; and were instead turned into serving the foreign plotters who are bent on destabilising these rising economies. There are, however, huge obvious differences in terms of the issues that sparked demonstrations in both countries: (1) proposed redevelopment of a park in the city in Turkey and (2) increased ticket prices in public transport in Brazil. One is, therefore, of the view that the timing was only coincidental which then questions the conspiracy argument at least to a limited extent. Furthermore, the leaders of the two nations are also different in the sense that one leads a moderately Islamist party, and the other is a female President at the top of a leftist movement. Thus a part from being two influential countries, they are also both called ‘democracies’ despite the difficulties of measuring and defining the word ‘democracy’; let alone these countries recent past histories of violence and dictatorships.It is believed that both governments in place were democratically elected and people had the opportunity to speak out via the ballot box, hence the questions are why should there be such protests at all; and why some people would resort to violent destruction of public properties and infrastructures for that matter? Clearly, it is difficult to establish why a tiny minority of protestors are always bent on destruction and this unanswered question will ultimately keep the space for conspiracy theorists to occupy. To understand this small group of unruly protesters however, one has to look at two problems: (1) they provide the opportunity to the incumbent government to deny its responsibility in the crisis (i.e. policy failures) by blaming foreign conspiracies. And (2) The group’s violent actions to affect change in society are also counterproductive as some state’s security forces deploy excessive force to quash the unrest. In this scenario, neither the government, nor the violent protesters achieve anything. Only violence triumphs over reason in which case so many legitimate grievances put forward by the majority law abiding citizens remain ignored and foreign conspiracies always hang in the air to be used by irresponsible governments to divert the attention.Given the political stature of the countries in discussion, would it be fair to ask whether they are the victims of their own expectations? If so, are we then witnessing a revolution of rising expectations?  The truth of the matter is that there are major institutional problems in most developing countries. It is a common myth, at least in the West that no developing country can consistently develop for a prolonged period of time without certain levels of destructive behaviours of political nature. In other words, they are predestined to fail due to their susceptibility to things such as lack of national vision and direction, mismanagement and corruption, and so on. To state the obvious, some African and Latin American countries were seen as the shining lights due to their meteoric rise in 1980s and every country reports by the international institutions singled them out as outstanding performers; but despite all the praises there is almost an inevitable fall around the corner. Why do countries go off the track? Many reasons of course, some have international dimensions (i.e. invited or uninvited) and others are purely domestic. With the focus on domestic reasons, some argue that incumbent leaders tend to lose touch with their people over time, and this becomes more prevalent in countries labelled ‘non-democratic’ where leaders stay in power for a long time.If Brazil and Turkey are democratic, then what’s the matter? One, the Turkish prime minister (PM) Recep Tayyip Erdogan is accused overstepping his democratic credentials as an elected leader to override the people’s needs and demands. In this case, the PM’s urge to build symbolic monuments in the only green public park in the city of Istanbul was in total clash with the public and environmentalists’ desire to have a free space to play and relax. Two, Brazil’s case is about people’s anger at billions of sums being spent on hosting the football’s World Cup and the Olympic Games, whereas the public and social services in the country are worse— if the worst in the region.If anything, the public outcry in both countries tells us a story. A story that whatever system of government in place, it matters less what they describe you as, but all boils down to the way you respond to the needs of your people. After all, It is about the numbers of schools, hospitals, industries and employment opportunities being and created for future generations; not about huge stadiums to be rated by the FIFA or prestigious monuments that remind you of the past glory days. There is no doubt that the two countries are key influential players in the new multi-polar world and have sufficient means and abilities to keep themselves at the stage; but the recent upheavals have shown that these ‘democratic’ countries were vulnerable and structurally unstable.  There could be more reasons to explain the chaotic scenes on the streets of these two countries, but what is certain is that even relatively stable countries (i.e. often called ‘democratic’) are more vulnerable than one might have thought. The question as to why such things do happen in Brazil and Turkey can also be directed to all countries including the developed ones, as most capital cities in the West have also had similar public anger directed at elected leaders. The response to all governments however is simple. A country on the highway does not necessarily mean that things should always be the leader’s way.